Marine Life Protection Act (California)

From Beachapedia

Overview: What is the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)?

California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is a law that requires the state to establish a
“network” of marine protected areas in near-shore waters from Oregon to the Mexican
border. This state law was written to reevaluate an array of marine protected areas that
had been designated over the years.

Like our system of wilderness protection on land, the value of fully protecting some
special places seems like common sense. But like we’ve discovered both on land and in
the sea, getting it right takes applying the best science available.

The law also established what society has accepted for centuries—that the oceans and all
its beauty and bounty are held in trust by our government for all citizens. That means
that it is the government’s job to balance the public’s ability to access and “take” these
resources, with the duty to protect them for current and future generations.

One important tool for balancing those interests is to set aside some places for full
protection. But it has to be done in a way that ensures these special places are successful
at protecting the diversity and abundance of marine life within the boundaries of the
marine protected areas. Further, modern science has proven that the marine life in these
protected areas are much older. Unlike humans and other mammals, fish exponentially
reproduce more offspring as they grow older.

So, multiple marine reserves designed in a “network” can take advantage of physical
ocean processes and the currents to distribute new offspring to areas open to fishing as well as other marine reserves strategically placed in the ocean current’s path. Our best
efforts to place marine reserves in a network based on these principles will give us the
greatest benefits while minimizing the displacement of our current fishing efforts. In other
words, a successful network of marine reserves gives us the most “bang for the buck.”

Obviously, the difficult task is finding ways to protect these special places while not
unnecessarily displacing those of us who catch fish for a living, or for pleasure. The
Surfrider Foundation worked hard to gather first-hand knowledge from our members
in order to help the science community find that balance.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to restoring and protecting our coast and ocean (for
all ocean and beach users). If properly implemented, the Marine Life Protection Act is
just one tool for accomplishing that mission.

Our involvement in the MLPA was “member-driven” and focused on local knowledge. Our
membership represents a wide diversity of people affected by the outcome of the
MLPA—from fishers to beachgoers who simply want special places fully protected for
their “intrinsic” value.

We support the MLPA because we understand our oceans are impaired and believe it’s
critical we take steps now to ensure a sustainable future. Much like the reasoning behind
establishing National Parks and fully protected wilderness areas on land, we recognize
there is tremendous value in protecting special places in the ocean for the opportunity to
witness and enjoy nature – or even simply the intrinsic value of knowing these places
exist.

But we are also fishermen and believe fishing can (and should) be accommodated in the final proposals in a sustainable fashion.
Just like Teddy Roosevelt who was an avid
hunter and outdoorsman, he recognized the importance of protecting special places for
their intrinsic value, and to balance healthy populations of wildlife. In a same vein, we
are “watermen and waterwomen” who swim, surf, sail and fish, but also love the ocean
and want to protect special places.

The cumulative impacts of human activities are taking a toll on our ocean’s ecosystems
and we must do something now for current and future generations. The choice is ours.
The duty is ours. The responsibility is ours. And the opportunity is now.

Bottom line: Surfrider’s work on the MLPA was about securing a sustainable future for our
fishing communities, ensuring everyone has access to a healthy and wild ocean, and
supporting diverse local businesses that rely on the coast and ocean.

Isn’t the Problem Pollution?

Pollution is both a threat to healthy marine life and presents human health risks for those
of us who spend time in the water. And, of course, Surfrider Foundation chapters are
doing everything we can to eliminate ocean pollution.

Nonetheless, eliminating pollution alone will not provide the benefits envisioned and
required in the law. Also, while eliminating pollution is a critical piece of restoring and
protecting wild and special places, the benefits of marine reserves can start to happen
while we continue our efforts to eliminate pollution. They are both tools in the toolbox.

Will the MLPA “Shut Down” Surfing, Diving and Other Non-extractive Recreation?

No. The MLPA actually encourages non-extractive recreational uses like kayaking,
diving, snorkeling and of course surfing. A stated goal for the MLPA is to preserve and
enhance opportunities for non-extractive activities which include recreational,
educational, and research opportunities. The rationale for improving these activities is
that significant educational, cultural, and economic benefits will be felt by local
communities and ocean users. The February 2013 issue of MPA Connections is a special issue focusing on recreation in MPAs (including surfing), and features articles written by several MPA Center partners, including Pete Stauffer of Surfrider Foundation.

The MLPA focuses on human activities that are burdening near-shore ecosystems; and surfing, kayaking, diving, and snorkeling are not among these. Marine Protected
Areas simply limit the removal or extraction of resources (i.e. fishing, kelp harvesting, oil
extraction, etc.), but still allow public access and non-extractive recreation.

In fact, MPAs could actually enhance the experience for ocean users because MPAs
increase biodiversity which means we will be sharing our favorite recreational spots with
thriving marine life.

So, not only will non-extractive recreation be unaffected, but designating areas for
protection will foster greater educational, cultural, and economic benefits for ocean users
and local communities.

There has been some suggestion that MPAs will prohibit non-extractive recreation. This
idea is far-fetched and only serves to undermine more legitimate concerns, and
constructive recommendations for implementation from our members who also enjoy
fishing or fish for their livelihood.

Will the MLPA “Shut Down” Fishing?

There are different levels of protection under the MLPA. Marine reserves will prohibit
fishing within fully protected boundaries. Other protected areas may limit fishing
opportunities. But it’s extremely important to remember that these areas will be a fraction of the coast and are designed to limit displacing fishing while still meeting the requirements of the law. Finding that balance is why it was important for fishermen
and others to work cooperatively through the Regional Stakeholder Groups as the State
designed this network of MPAs.

Creating MPAs will help replenish healthy fisheries in the long run. Studies show fish
populations are declining and fishermen are now catching half of what they did in 1990
(and the fish they do catch are 45 percent smaller). MPAs allow marine populations to
increase and individual species to grow to full maturity--which increases the number of
offspring from protected areas. These larger adult populations may "spill over" the
boundaries of MPAs and provide improved fishing in areas adjacent to MPAs as well as
“re-stock” other areas as the young fish are transported by the currents.

Often times, when a State agency is creating a Marine Protected Area they will
incorporate “a mix” of the different levels of protection. There three levels of protection
for the MLPA:

Typically with “a mix” of protection levels, a Marine Reserve could be surrounded and/or
“book ended” by either a Marine Conservation Area or Marine Park. It’s important to
remember that MPAs are spread out over several miles of the coast and therefore if
fishing is prohibited in one area, it could be open in an adjacent area.

Why Did We Encourage People to Get Involved?

The process for designating these areas allowed for an unprecedented amount of public
input, and consequently demanded a balanced approach to meet the differing wants and
needs of interested parties.

The state of California is required to implement this law. The state took measures to
ensure there was representation of differing opinions in the process. Both the environmental
and fishing communities were well represented on the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.

We understand the reluctance of some in the fishing community to support the MLPA process. In fact, many of our members
are fishers—but fishers who have a deep commitment to restoring and protecting the
coast for future generations. So, we appreciated comments from our members and the
public that focused on a solution to implementing the MLPA in a way that ensures the goals
of the law, but minimizes fishery dislocation to the extent possible.

We have thought long and hard about supporting the MLPA and since 1999 we have held
a supportive view. Please review our policy and position statement documents.

What About “Special Closures” and Public Access?

Again, the purpose of the MLPA is to examine and limit human activities that impinge on
near-shore ecosystems—non-extractive recreational activities and general public access are not considered damaging. In fact the law encourages non-extractive
recreation by saying: “…the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and
study….”

In the North-Central Coast, the process designated some “special closures” where public
access was restricted to protect breeding and haul-out areas for birds and marine mammals. These areas were designated under different authority than the MLPA.

Surfrider Foundation believes these areas may be important to protecting the entire
diversity of life on our coast and ocean. However, like MPAs designated under the
MLPA, selection of these sites was fully considered by the Regional Stakeholder
Group and underwent the same scientific and socio-economic scrutiny as MPAs.

In limited situations where sensitive intertidal areas or bird/marine mammals breeding
grounds are present, there could be special closures or limited access. However,
Surfrider recognizes the importance of protecting these areas for greater ecological
integrity and for the long-term protection of biodiversity. We are confident any limited
access will not be overwhelmingly large, and that protection of sensitive habitats can be
met by guidance on appropriate access.

Conclusion

In the End, What Did the Surfrider Foundation Support?

We were committed to following the MLPA process until the end and did not take an
official position on any proposals until we sought input from both fishermen and
environmentalists.

Our analysis, and subsequent support for specific proposals, incorporated views from all ocean
users and was in line with our mission statement: "The protection and enjoyment of oceans, waves and beaches through a powerful activist network."

Throughout the process, we encouraged all interested stakeholders to find
common ground and recognize the right, and public duty, to fully protect special places
while not unduly limiting fishing opportunities.

We encouraged our chapters and members to engage in the process in a respectful way
that recognizes cross-interests in the outcome. We supported a final proposal that we
believe met scientific guidelines for ensuring the network produces the benefits of other
successful marine reserves around the world.

Other States

Oregon

The State of Oregon has been engaged in a process to consider marine reserves along its coast for the past several years. With a recommendation from the state’s Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC), and passage of legislation implementing that recommendation, the process is entering the next phase.

The State has established two pilot marine reserve sites, a marine reserve at Otter Rock, north of Newport, and a marine reserve and associated marine protected area at Redfish Rocks, near Port Orford. Four other sites are undergoing further consideration and evaluation as sites for future marine reserves. More info.

Redfish Rocks and Otter Rock:
Harvest restrictions began on January 1, 2012 for the Redfish Rocks and Otter Rock sites. Scientific monitoring at the sites began in 2010 and is currently ongoing.

Cape Perpetua, Cascade Head and Cape Falcon:
Rules have been adopted and harvest restrictions are scheduled to begin in 2014 for Cape Perpetua and Cascade Head, and 2016 for Cape Falcon. Baseline data is currently being collected at the sites.

Washington

The State of Washington is home to 127 MPAs managed by eleven federal, state, and local agencies. These sites occur in Puget Sound and on the coast and cover approximately 644,000 acres and over six million feet of shoreline.

This article is part of a series on the Ocean Ecosystem looking at the various species of plants and animals which depend on a healthy coast and ocean environment, and the threats that can be posed to them by human activity

For information about laws, policies and conditions impacting the beach ecology of a specific state, please visit Surfrider's State of the Beach report to find the State Report for that state, and click on the "Beach Ecology" indicator link.